If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Now, will someone please tell me why the United States should not restrict its gun legislation to ban at least semiautomatic weapons? Will someone please let me know why anyone needs any gun that could be used for anything other than sporting or is immobile and slow-firing enough to not be used outside of home protection? Can someone explain why we should not move to not only requiring criminal background checks in order to purchase firearms, but require psychological evaluations and months of review as well?

Because crazies will be crazies. Today, the same day as a shooter in the U.S. killed 27 people with his legally purchased semiautomatic gun, a man weilding a kinfe attacked 22 in a school in Chengping, China.

What the second amendment says about 'gun ownership' was written nearly a century before the first semi- automatic weapon was made and before anyone even had the conception that a fully-automatic rifle with 20+ pieces of death in it would be purchasable by pretty much any adult.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Key word here being Militia. Rarely do you see people buying and amassing weapons for non military and non police groups to keep their communities safe. What we do see instead is that mostly every time it is individuals buying and using weapons. Another key word here also would be regulated. Its referring to groups and organizations, not just people as in anybody and everybody. The second amendment almost never, ever applies when talking about gun use or ownership by individuals. It applies only when talking about individuals within an organized militia owning weapons.

So yes, we need some reform and better regulation. It is becoming quite self evident.

You have to understand that a great many of the people who oppose gun control are straight up loony.

I recently had a bunch of my cousin's friends tell me about how the Second Amendment was written with the purpose of making sure American citizens are AS WELL-ARMED AS THE MILITARY in case the government ever turns on its citizens and tries to control/subdue them. This is not a rational mindset; this is the thought process I had always previously attributed to old coots living in cabins in the woods. But this came from a bunch of young, upper-middle-class college-attending kids. The government wants to control and enslave us, so we need to be armed well enough to take on the military. The Second Amendment is supposed to give every day citizens 50 caliber rifles and fully automatic machine guns, apparently.

You know, despite the fact that these kids are cool with the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA, which are by far the most oppressive things the American government has done since slavery and Asian-American interment and the Trail of Tears (all of which my cousin and his friends are also okay with). So I have no idea what more they think the government is going to do that they'll have to go arms up. But that's another discussion.

The Second Amendment IS awkwardly worded. It doesn't say what "arms" are. It doesn't say what a "militia" is, and certainly not what a "well-regulated" one is. That said, I've come to peace with the fact that there is a level of gun ownership that is protected by it and our citizens are entitled to, but the main problem is that those that oppose gun control usually oppose ANY rational semblance of control that anyone with common sense knows is the right thing to do. In their minds, they literally think that if we ban armor-piercing rounds and semi-automatic weapons or putting a limit on guns owned in a household, the government will take away hunting rifles and BB guns the very next day.

Because the Republicans will not allow any reasonable amount of control. Apparently the 2nd amendment means everyone gets a machine gun.

Ah no...

the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes

Meaning that you have the right to own a gun but you can only use it for purposes in which it isn't against the law. People use them for self defense or there's few who use them for hunting purposes. Yes, there were alot of shootings, however it doesn't mean that the second amendment should be taken away.

I guess the case isn't "guns don't kill people, people kill people" I see it as "stupid people with guns kill people". I've seen a documentary where someone shows us how easy it is to buy a gun these days. I guess what I am trying to say is that maybe they should reinforce the laws that you have to be over 18 with a permit.

The only use I see for gun availability is hunting and personal protection, but I believe that gun control's benefits far outweigh its negatives. Hunting is mainly a pastime for most people in today's modern society, so I don't believe that the hunting argument is that strong.

The personal protection argument is slightly better because I understand the need for a weapon in case of an assault on one's person or home, but reduced gun availability will also decrease the chance that the criminal has a firearm.

As stated in the OP, countries with zero gun availability have less reports of gun violence than countries that allow everyone to own guns. And I also agree with the OP that people purchasing weapons should have their background checked for psychological imbalances, though that won't always stop crazy people from obtaining weapons.

Meaning that you have the right to own a gun but you can only use it for purposes in which it isn't against the law. People use them for self defense or there's few who use them for hunting purposes. Yes, there were alot of shootings, however it doesn't mean that the second amendment should be taken away.

So, why are assault rifles still acceptable? What "traditionally lawful purpose" would they serve that another gun couldn't do just as well or better, and not be as readily used for mass murder?

I guess the case isn't "guns don't kill people, people kill people" I see it as "stupid people with guns kill people". I've seen a documentary where someone shows us how easy it is to buy a gun these days. I guess what I am trying to say is that maybe they should reinforce the laws that you have to be over 18 with a permit.

Well, yes, that too, and doing background checks, and having an actual wait period, and maybe the gun stores should have some kind of permit, too?

I do believe that gun control is needed but we have to think for a second here. Criminals/crazy people don't care about laws. If they really want a gun, they are going to go to the right people and get it anyway. It's just like drugs. The republican argument is to not focus on gun control but instead focus on the medical sufficiency of the mentally unstable.

So, why are assault rifles still acceptable? What "traditionally lawful purpose" would they serve that another gun couldn't do just as well or better, and not be as readily used for mass murder?

You know some people do like to collect things, just merely to have them and yes sometimes use them for hunting.

Originally Posted by Phlogiston

Well, yes, that too, and doing background checks, and having an actual wait period, and maybe the gun stores should have some kind of permit, too?

You mean like what they have in Connecticut? The state that has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and there still was a mass shooting?

Here is the thing, you can have every gun control law you want, but this shooting still would have happened. Only way to prevent it would be to ban guns all together but that is ignorant merely because as others have said, we have a massive border with Mexico that already has a well connected network to ship in things. Not to mention in the next 20 to 30 years with the spread of 3D Printers, Gun Control laws in and of themselves will become obsolete.

What the second amendment says about 'gun ownership' was written nearly a century before the first semi- automatic weapon was made and before anyone even had the conception that a fully-automatic handgun with 20+ pieces of death in it would be purchasable by pretty much any adult.

Key word here being Militia. Rarely do you see people buying and amassing weapons for non military and non police groups to keep their communities safe. What we do see instead is that mostly every time it is individuals buying and using weapons. Another key word here also would be regulated. Its referring to groups and organizations, not just people as in anybody and everybody. The second amendment almost never, ever applies when talking about gun use or ownership by individuals. It applies only when talking about individuals within an organized militia owning weapons.

So yes, we need some reform and better regulation. It is becoming quite self evident.

I agree with what this person said.

Can someone compare our system of gun regulation to another, perhaps more safe country? If not, then compare it too Britain...I'd kinda like to know.

And Yes I'd also agree with the fact that criminals don't care about the laws. Yet, we need to enforce them to get much of anywhere. Lets not play party politics please >3>...we get enough of it, lol

I don't see how "it could still happen" is a good argument. Like "if there were no guns this would never happen", it's technically true, but doesn't really address what went wrong, much less makes any attempt at fixing the issue.
And just because *THIS* tragedy may not be related to loose gun control laws (not saying it is or isn't) doesn't mean we don't need tighter gun laws in general.

As stated in the OP, countries with zero gun availability have less reports of gun violence than countries that allow everyone to own guns. And I also agree with the OP that people purchasing weapons should have their background checked for psychological imbalances, though that won't always stop crazy people from obtaining weapons.

Well of course, but you can still commit a crime without a gun.

I agree that people should be screened when they go to purchase a gun, or get a gun permit. In fact, it should be like with your driver's license. Every license has an expiration date, and you have to renew it by that date. So this should be a requirement for gun permits as well, and you have to be screened for mental evaluation.

Then again, you'll have people who'll lie about their mental health...

Either way, I don't want guns to be out-lawed completely. Not everyone is great at self-defense, not everyone is great at throwing knives, not everyone is an archer, et cetera, et cetera. Just because you can hide in your house doesn't mean that the person who broke in won't do harmful things to you. I want to be able to protect my family if the criminals ever make a move to harm. I can't always guarantee that the person threatening my family won't ever have a gun on their person, but many burglars are cowardly people who will run at the drop of a pin, and will certainly run from a house owned by a gun owner. But people are unpredictable, and I don't want to turn my back on any trespasser.

If people are so insistent on gun control, then we should be talking more about gun safety, especially to the children. Instead of telling someone "Don't play with guns" and just leaving it at that, how about we teach that person by letting them see a gun in person, and have them handle it (safety on and no bullets in the chamber, you need to be smart with this)? Makes more sense then just showing a digital picture of a gun, because then the person will have had some personal experience with a gun, and will have (hopefully) gained some common sense.

That's just me, though. I don't know if I ever will get a gun, I personally don't want to, but if I have to (I pray it doesn't get to that point) then I will. And for that, I don't want a very strict gun control law. I'd be better off with having difficulty (but not impossible) getting permits to a gun than to have no guns at all.

If people are so insistent on gun control, then we should be talking more about gun safety, especially to the children. Instead of telling someone "Don't play with guns" and just leaving it at that, how about we teach that person by letting them see a gun in person, and have them handle it (safety on and no bullets in the chamber, you need to be smart with this)? Makes more sense then just showing a digital picture of a gun, because then the person will have had some personal experience with a gun, and will have (hopefully) gained some common sense.

I do believe there is slight a connection between socialization of learning what guns are. However keep in mind that kids tend to override there parents by the time the reach the age that they atcually understand what it is. Honestly, the situation depends upon the kid's personality and area of living...but that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt to try something like that. But lets get more confirmation upon what works when it comes to making kids understand that. :3

The whole thing about gun control is that they obtain a weapon, legal or not. There is no way to stop guns with there being so many of them. The only thing that the government can do is promote gun safety and make it harder to obtain a weapon for law abiding citizens like me. That's all gun control does.

The whole thing about gun control is that they obtain a weapon, legal or not. There is no way to stop guns with there being so many of them. The only thing that the government can do is promote gun safety and make it harder to obtain a weapon for law abiding citizens like me. That's all gun control does.

Yes. As evidenced by the first post, that's clearly all gun control laws do.

Support. Gun Control laws are a joke as they are now. Anyone can own an ASSAULT rifle. Yes, we have the right to bear arms. However, when that was written, ARMS DID NOT REFER TO AUTOMATIC WEAPONS that can take out tens and tends of people in seconds. The NRA needs to get their sh*t together.

This is why I'm glad that Australia makes it hard to legally obtain guns. Only military personel and the police should be allowed to carry them. Carrying a gun around is just asking for trouble. It makes the person carrying the gun an instant target. It installs the false belief that they are stronger than they actually are. Experienced criminals who use guns will be a lot more faster than other people -the slightest hesitation could mean death. Futhermore unless someone anticipates the attack beforehand most people wont have enough time to get a gun and load the bullets without their attacker seeing rendering the gun useless. I feel for the families affected by this crisis but this is what I think of the issue. Countries which allow teens and religious psychos to easily buy guns are seriously messed up. The law has failed the victims of this shooting.

Anyway, I don't think we should go full out BAN ALL GUNS YO! because I don't find it neccessary or feasible at the moment.

HOWEVER-
Something needs to be done about the easy access of guns. It really should not be that easy to get one. And I hear this "oh well they'll just get them anyway lol". Okay? So that means we should just sit on our hands and do nothing? There's no reason why we can't make it harder for them to get.

I'm not sure how good of a solution this is, but I'm also in favor of regular mental health checkups of gun owners. If someone isn't found to be mentally fit, take the gun away until they are.

This is why I'm glad that Australia makes it hard to legally obtain guns. Only military personel and the police should be allowed to carry them.

Which is going to be rather obsolete in about 20 years from now when you have wide spread 3D printers that can print out guns.

Originally Posted by Fearless123

Carrying a gun around is just asking for trouble. It makes the person carrying the gun an instant target. It installs the false belief that they are stronger than they actually are. Experienced criminals who use guns will be a lot more faster than other people -the slightest hesitation could mean death. Futhermore unless someone anticipates the attack beforehand most people wont have enough time to get a gun and load the bullets without their attacker seeing rendering the gun useless.

You do realize there are Concealed Carry laws in which people can walk around with a hand gun hidden under their shirt completely concealed from the public, making much of your argument here moot.

Originally Posted by Fearless123

I feel for the families affected by this crisis but this is what I think of the issue. Countries which allow teens and religious psychos to easily buy guns are seriously messed up. The law has failed the victims of this shooting.